The market value of their home grew enormously, and with it their property taxes. They live frugally on a low, fixed income and eventually the tax burden grew too much. So yeah, they got a nice capital gain, but they had to move away from the home they bought as newlyweds and raised their family in. It probably would've been better for their children's inheritance if they hadn't sold the house, too.
Yeah but they were still forced to do something that actually makes sense, I mean considering the big picture it's good that an actual family now get to live in that home, that really needs a big home. And the couple downsized to a suitable home, and got a big pile of cash for the inconvenience. Seems like it's working great if you ask me, what's the issue here and how is it any "better" if we would spend tax money for singles/couples to live in large family homes that they don't need and can't afford?
It sounds insane to me - so basically if you want to buy your own home to be safe against rent inflation, you can still be priced out of your own home. How does that make any sense?
Well, only if your home is really oversized. The "issue" is that retired people are "forced" to move to a home sized for 1/2 people and not stay forever in a home made for 6 people, unless they have savings to pay for the property tax. And that's "sad" somehow
Think of a young couple, new kid, want a bigger house in their home town, no longer possible because their wages at the ski lodge don't actually let them afford a home the size they need. They sell their current one and leave. I'm not saying feel sorry for them, just using it as an example.
